It's also anti-emetic so helps with chemo related nausea. There's a drug called Nabilone which is a synthetic analogue of THC that has been prescribed (albeit in limited amounts) for decades for chemo patients in Australia.

Seems to be the way all these things go G. A lot of people both pro and anti at the extreme ends of the spectrum of beliefs about new use for drug X with the truth lying somewhere round the middle.
Thing with the cannabis and cancer cure claims is no-one ever bothers to mention you can kill all cancers in vitro, and rodents have a far better immune system than humans.
Sad thing is people pushing their more extreme beliefs about these things just polarise those who may possibly be inclined to accept there may be potential for benefits, and push those who are anti their beliefs even further to the extremes.
Me, my lab mates and other researchers I know see the same thing happening with psychedelics...plenty of positive therapeutic potential, but people banging on about how they will solve everyone's problems just scare away people who are unsure what to believe, and further polarise those who are against spending money on psychedelic research.

Perhaps it was because he wasn't living in a Petrie dish or wasn't a rodent???
The following is from -
Abrams, D. I., & Guzman, M. (2015). Cannabis in cancer care. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 97(6), 575-586.
Link to pdf -
https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt6367m6vj/qt6367m6vj.pdf
"Despite these impressive in vitro and animal model findings regarding the potential antitumor effects of cannabinoids, there is still no solid basis for ongoing claims by proponents of highly concentrated cannabis extracts or oils that these preparations can “cure cancer.” Increasing numbers of patients in North America are seeking oils high in THC and/or CBD due to testimonials that patients have used these preparations either topically to eradicate skin cancers or systemically to eliminate nonskin cancers. This has led to a number of patients seeking to forego or postpone potentially curative conventional cancer therapies in favor of self-medicating with high-potency cannabis oils. Many patients claiming to be cured of their cancers have used the products in addition to conventional cancer therapies, thus obfuscating the issue further. Although the in vitro and animal evidence is intriguing, there have not yet been any robust human studies investigating cannabis as an anticancer agent that would warrant advising patients to forego conventional therapy in favor of using a high-potency cannabis extract. Patients who choose to delay conventional therapies in the hopes of benefiting from a trial of cannabis oil against their cancer risk the possibility of having a potentially treatable cancer become incurable."

Your post prompted me to actually do some research and I agree, the whole hops CBD thing seems extremely dubious at best. The quality of the published paper seems extremely poor with almost no information in it.

Ebay too....I know nothing about kava though so no idea about what the quality would be like
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/KAVA-PIPER-METHYSTICUM-NOBLE-BORONGORU-VARIETY-FROM-VANUATU-200g/153186835200?hash=item23aaa59b00:g:r~sAAOSwiqNboj9v:rk:3:pf:0
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/TONGAN-PURE-KAVA/202444487450?hash=item2f22a1bb1a:g:bC8AAOSwnnVZihjq:rk:2:pf:0

And don't forget to support our own Aussie home grown STA-SAFE consortium, Dr David Caldicott, and the ACTINOS project who already successfully carried out the first pill testing facilities at the ACT Groovin the Moo festival earlier this year while you're at it

I'm not saying CBD doesn't have any benefit for PD, but no way that happened over a 3-4 minute timeframe, it's just not physiologically possible.
And secondly the video is made by a company flogging CBD oil, so obviously have an ulterior motive.
Medical marijuana has lots of potential and positive applications but (just like psychedelic assisted therapy) don't fall for the bullshit hype. They both are proving to be very promising but will never be the cure-all unscrupulous marketers such as this claim they are.

Off on a bit of a tangent but check this out Gimli.
http://www.biancoprojects.com/vessels-of-care-and-control/
An apiarist and bioartist from SymbioticA lab here at UWA used a bee hive to drive a tissue culture incubator.
This is just a brief synopsis but there's more info about if you're curious.
SymbioticA do some really interesting stuff like growing and eating the very first Petri dish grown steak.
Did one of their units and their very interesting people and always get you thinking outside the box.

I've never even heard of a super cookie before....so I googled it. First page that came up said use a VPN. Maybe try that for your porning? Or have you already tried that?
Anyway I only looked at the first page, I I I guess google probably has more answers if you have a look through it.

EEG is full of more assumptions than pretty much any other form of imaging, hence why its the crudest method. Each electrode covers multiple square centimeters of surface area, takes minute signals which pass through flesh, skin, bone and connective tissue, is then massively amplified and filteres, and can only measure a few millimetres inside the brain. Its really not a good example.
Depth electrodes are more accurate yes, but are only used in compromised brains e.g. parkinsons, epilepsy patients etc which introduces a whole other huge amount of assumptions that need to be made in order to extrapolate anything to a "normal" brain, whatever that may be. Apart from the fact that they are invasive, and when you change a system (eg insert an electrode) you fundamentally change the way that system behaves, and the brain is probably the most complex system we know of.
Not to mention that 99.9 % of people using any form of brain imaging have no idea about the massive statistical manipulation that goes on in order to process the data. So if you don't fully understand the process then thats another level of assumptions again.
Nothing is that simple in neuroscience, and especially not consciousness studies.
Consciousness obviously requires a brain (so anatomy) but is not the brain itself, it is emergent from the brain, which is why it is so hard to study, because no-one understands how subjective experience can arise from matter (neurons etc) which goes back to Stu's original comment.
The form of consciousness that is currently studied and understood is called the "easy question". Basically massively reductionist, focusing on how sensory input is taken in, processed and then produces experience. But it has little value in explaining behaviour, and if you know a bit about biology, all the reductionism in the world is worthless if it can't extrapolate to behaviour.
But again, reductionism explains almost nothing of consciousness.

Okay so say someone has Alzheimer's with major atrophy of the hippocampus and as such can't encode new memories. That has nothing to do with consciousness, it is cognition. Just because you can't form new memories informs nothing of your state of consciousness.
But....if you knock out the ascending reticular activating system, as with anaesthetic, then yeah one loses consciousness, but how do you measure it, it's binary, either on or off, 1 or 0.
And brain imaging is far less informative than it is made out to be. It's an indirect measure of anything at best, so a correlation, and doesn't relate cause to function at all. For example fMRI measures changes in brain blood oxygenation assuming deoxygenated blood represents an area of high activity....fair enough. But what no one ever mentions is that there are more inhibitory (reduce probability of activity) neurons in the cortex than excitatory neurons which increase likelihood of activity. So is all that oxygen going to inhibitory or excitatory neurons??? No one can tell. And that's not even to mention astrocytes, oligodendrocytes and microglia.
Same with fdg-PET. Just substitute glucose for oxygen in what I've said above and it's all the same.
And either way your still measuring cognitive activity not consciousness.
Great conversation though!